I had a suspicion that may be the case. Definitely agree with getting it
online, but Tom raises a valid point. Is there an easy workaround (separate
name/affiliation from contact information and disclose one but suppress the
other)?
-----Original Message-----
From: liz.gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 5:03 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; 'Thomas Keller'
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Whois study suggetsions
Thanks Kristina. Apparently that redaction feature is a straightforward
algorithm in email but is more complex to employ to delete partial portions of
text in an on-line form. I'm sure it could be mastered nonetheless. I was
excited to get the online form working given time deadlines and opted for
prudence and expediency.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 1:29 PM
To: liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx; Thomas Keller
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Whois study suggetsions
Steve DelBianco submitted them on behalf of NetChoice. He gave me permission
to REVEAL and asked that I let you all know he is happy to answer any questions
anyone may have about the study proposals.
Liz, I know that some - but not all - of my contact information is redacted
when I post to the Council list from my Blackberry (which has that pesky
automatic e-signature). Perhaps the method used there could be cross applied
here?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of liz.gasster
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 12:13 PM
To: 'Thomas Keller'
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Whois study suggetsions
Hi Tom,
Yes, I take your overall point! As to the details of how this came about, the
answer has more of a technical reason, not so much a policy rationale.
I wanted to solicit full reach information (which is not usually the case for
public comments) so that I could follow up and ask clarifying questions if need
be, without revealing all info to the world, but couldn't separate the "name
and affiliation" from the reach info, so we opted to blank out all from the
public view.
I guess I'll operate like an OPOC in this case...I will RELAY but not REVEAL!
Liz
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 12:50 AM
To: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Council GNSO'
Subject: AW: [council] Whois study suggetsions
Hello,
What strikes me as very strange is that everyone who registeres a domain name
in the gTLD world will be held out to the public but persons/groups that
suggest further studies on this issue are
Submitted By:
[Redacted for privacy reasons]
protected.
Best,
tom
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Januar 2008 19:52
An: 'Council GNSO'
Betreff: [council] Whois study suggetsions
Dear Council members,
The 3 study suggestion responses to topics of study on WHOIS may be directly
viewed at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00001.htmlhttp://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00002.htmlhttp://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html
These are published on page:
http://www.icann.org/public_comment/
and by clicking on the link at the bottom of the text marked [comments],
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/
the studies may be seen along with any comments that may be submitted.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks you.
Kind regards,
Glen
--
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org